I note a paper supporting the hypothesis that bushfires can cause rainfall. They do this by fertilising the ocean (smoke and ash) and causing phytoplankton blooms. These increase rainfall by trapping more heat in the ocean surface and via the cloud seeding effect of the dimethyl sulphide produced (along with other volatile sulphur compounds).

This raises the question of whether it might be feasible to create rainfall events artificially. If viable, it could become a means of preventing disaster, helping farmers, and perhaps even making oceans more productive.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0048969721058538

The UN currently has a ban on ocean fertilisation, a mindset even more idiotic than Australia's nuclear ban. So next time the bush is ablaze, thank the UN for banning research that might prevent disasters and save lives.

Hi Fester,

Humans have messed with nature enough, and look at the disaster that has caused world wide. Extreme heatwave conditions, periods of up to 7 straight days or more of very high temperatures (40C plus) over most of the continent, such as we are experiencing now. Extreme heatwaves were occurring about once in 20 years, now its once every 5 years, and increasing. There is no doubt this is the result of global warming, there is no argument. No messing with the oceans.

Hi Paul,

Would you ban modern agriculture? The use of fertilizers? Did you know that numerous marine species have to compete with human fishing?

What is wrong with research? It would determine whether there could be benefit or harm?

"Humans have messed with nature enough"

The earth supports eight billion humans thanks to human ingenuity. Ingenuity is what keeps us alive.

Fester,

I don't think Paul was arguing against research or human ingenuity. That framing feels like a distraction or a strawman.

The actual question is whether deliberately perturbing coupled ocean-atmosphere systems at scale is meaningfully comparable to local, bounded interventions like agriculture or fertiliser use. They differ in scale, controllability, reversibility, and risk levels.

That’s why governance and precaution enter the discussion - because Earth systems don’t respond linearly when you scale up small effects, Not because people are anti-science or anti-human.

If ocean fertilisation can reliably, predictably, and safely influence rainfall in ways that matter on land, that case has to be made explicitly. Analogies to farming don’t do that.

Strawman? You do research to understand and define, that way you might determine if something is worthwhile. The oceans are always being fertilised one way or another (dust (storms), smoke, river outflows, vulcanism), so it's not as if any significant harm is likely.

Also, saying that something should not be understood because humans have meddled enough with nature is an absurdity. Several hundred thousand years ago there were perhaps only a few thousand human beings as a result of climate change (ice ages).

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/human-ancestors-nearly-went-extinct-900-000-years-ago/

When I consider such things I think how silly to believe that humans are better off not understanding things. Unless the research is done, no one can say whether or not ocean fertilisation might bring advantage, but is is known that natural events can cause rain and provide nutrients for marine life. So why discount an idea that could be as significant for humanity as the use of fertilizer for agriculture?

Fester,

No one is arguing against understanding natural systems. That's also a straw man.

The disagreement is about risk at scale. Saying "the oceans are always being fertilised" doesn't establish that intentional, sustained, and scalable intervention is low-risk. Natural background processes aren't evidence of safety when you change magnitude, timing, or spatial concentration.

You've now asserted that "no significant harm is likely", but that's exactly the claim that would need to be demonstrated before advocating anything beyond tightly controlled experiments. History is full of interventions that looked benign by analogy and turned out not to be.

So the unresolved question isn't whether humans should understand nature. It's whether deliberately perturbing coupled ocean–atmosphere systems can be done predictably, reversibly, and with acceptable risk, and who decides that threshold.

That's the crux.